Technology Disruption and Investing

Investment Analysis Clubs Saul’s Investing Discussions
1

Here is a very interesting presentation by Tony Seba . He talks about technology disruption covering the adoption of disruptive technologies both historically (as far back as 1900 with the automobile) up through the future (energy and autonomous driving changes possible by 2030).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0

I recommend you watch the video (1 hour) as my comments below will make more sense with it as context. I am focused primarily on investing related extrapolation from this presentation.

Everything below is pure speculation on my part and for my own use in clarifying my thoughts of the moment. My thoughts are at times rambling (stream of consciousness as I consider the topic) and not well connected as I am extrapolating from the concepts presented in the video linked above. I may be wrong (or not) and I welcome any thoughts of your own, including criticism of my own conclusions.

I find the concept of disruptive technologies very relevant to our investing style. While I consider Mr. Seba’s predictions for the future arguable (I am always skeptical of prophets), the concept and timeline of disruptive technologies is a valid idea and worth considering in the context of growth stocks.

A few key concepts I identified useful for analyzing my investments:

• A 10x cost benefit indicates a disruption event is imminent.
• An entire industry may be created or disappear in 10 years or less.
• Disruption events are becoming more and happening more rapidly.
• A disruptive technology is adopted in an s-curve.

My first observation is that Amazon (AMZN) is a driving force in retail sales disruption. I remember Saul commenting on the empty stores in New York when he sold out of SBNY. I have seen the same empty storefronts in prime locations throughout Europe in locations where locals say a new store used to move in within weeks (or days) of an old store closing. Comments by these people are that it is a sign of a struggling economy but I now believe it is an indication of this transition to online retail sales. Amazon was a driving force behind this disruption and Shopify is one of the current beneficiaries of the fact that we are currently in the midst of this disruption event.

The difficulty for investing is in identifying which companies will be the key players in a disruptive event. Amazon is a clear player for the shift to online retail sales but Shopify could never have been predicted until it appeared and even now is often debated. The adoption of the Shopify platform is amazing and their revenue growth impressive but continued operations at a net loss are understandably worrisome even assuming the trend towards online sales continues. Other factors are even less clear as they are not yet in play. Amazon is experimenting with drone delivery, an idea which could spread rapidly as a part of this same transition to online retail sales. Who will provide the drones and the components for the drones? No clear answers at this stage. Drone delivery is also still so uncertain it may never become a reality or could be overtaken by a some other technology which ends up being more cost effective.

Looking further into the future, the obvious upcoming disruption events discussed in the video are energy and autonomous vehicles. What interests me most about these upcoming events is that we are so early in the cycle there are no companies clearly profiting from these events. Revolutions in electric cars, solar power, energy storage, artificial intelligence, autonomous driving and more all look promising yet even the best companies related to these technologies are often questionable investments. Just look at the controversy surrounding Tesla. Even Nvidia which has a more broad investment thesis is far from what I would call a sure bet.

Yet I see this same uncertainty and doubt as the most promising indicator I have that I am looking at interesting companies. Change is difficult for people to accept and rapid change can feel outright traumatic at times. If a change might lead to an entire industry collapsing (such as could be caused by autonomous driving systems) there will be significant resistance by consumers and widespread attempts by the dying industry to delay or prevent their own demise. I am thinking of autonomous driving systems here and the widespread doubt that people will accept Level 5 autonomy in the predicted timeframe (2025 I believe). Is this a real concern of people? Or is it resistance by numerous industries which would become obsolete with widespread acceptance of Level 5 autonomy? (To be clear, I don’t have an answer for that).

All that theory is fine and dandy, now lets get practical: How does this change my investment philosophy?

I will take a closer look at unprofitable companies involved in pushing the boundaries of innovation. To date I have ignored Tesla because my analysis has been that there is far more hope in the price than real value reflected by the finances. But what if that hopeful price is actually understated because we resist the idea of rapid change? To my knowledge, other companies are working on electronic cars and autonomous driving yet none are as focused on the idea as Tesla.

I will look around for boring industries which may benefit from upcoming disruptions. If Mr. Seba is correct, batteries are going to become far more important in upcoming years as energy storage becomes so cheap on-demand energy generation can no longer compete. Someone is going to profit from the entire world suddenly buying large quantities of batteries. There may be an investment opportunity here which is being overlooked.

A few companies at the periphery of disruptive events may suddenly become much better or much worse investments with little or no notice. SBNY and Saul’s argument for exiting his position comes to mind. In a more positive direction, could LGIH be a beneficiary by offering houses based on a new lifestyle permitted by the combination of autonomous driving systems and cost efficient solar energy generation+storage?

I will look closer for sudden shifts in profitability and also for sudden shifts in supply and demand. Oil has had some rapid fluctuations in over-supply, is this a precursor indication of a shift away from oil? A few communities around the world are suddenly a lot more interested in solar power (Australia and some islands as noted in the video above), another indication? Perhaps I should watch the automotive industry sales even if I don’t yet have a related investment?

The rate of technological change is steadily increasing. This can be seen in the video above in the chart which shows disruption events over the past 100+ years. I remember from the knowledge base that Saul has a tendency to look back two years to find profitable companies. I see this trend changing with investments such as Shopify and big data companies which have not even exists for two years as of his initial investment, much less shown rapid growth for that timeframe. I may need to react to increasing growth faster than historical trends indicate.

Of primary interest is a comment from my friend who recommended me the video: “The stone age didn’t end because we ran out of stones.” In this case, the fossil fuel age probably won’t end because we run out of fossil fuels, but rather because we have developed an alternative which is both better and (more importantly) cheaper. This cost inversion is what will drive all of the above changes, not the actual technologies themselves. That seems critical to keep in mind when looking at future investments.

The video above notes that disruptions are happening more frequently and over a shorter duration of time. However, it seems to me we must separate these into two types of disruptive events: those that evolve society (e.g. the smartphone) and those that fundamentally change society (e.g. the automobile near 1900 and upcoming Level 5 autonomous driving systems). I suspect that anything which fundamentally changes society will probably take 10-15 years to play out even if the technology could technically be in widespread use faster than this. (Though I would definitely watch to see if I am wrong in this guess)

Regardless of any of the above, the concept of disruptive events seems important to consider as this type of disruption is one of the primary drivers of a growth opportunity for a company. Better understanding of disruptive events at a macroeconomic scale will likely lead to better investment decisions at the level of individual companies.

====================================================

End of my rambling thoughts and random musings.
I am curious what all of you think.
Criticisms welcome, I may be wrong.

27 Likes
2

<<>>

Not overlooked at all, that company is Tesla. They are building the world’ largest factory to manufacture batteries. The current factory they are building in Nevada will probably not be large enough.

But Tesla is not just cars but batteries. Whether or not their solo product is worthwhile is another debate. Tesla being batteries however does not require much debate, anymore than the Dodgers are baseball.

Tinker

4 Likes
3

" empty stores in New York"

I seldom go go malls but ask my female friends about them. To see why they like them
I did recently visit 2 malls. One new
, quite large, outside of Little Rock. It was not covered so it was warm getting from store to store. It has near zero ambiance. Also had near zero customers.
Then I visited the older Green Hills mall in Nashville. Located in an area with terrible traffic. But busy. Especially the Apple store. Mid day on a weekday it was packed. This mall is covered and somehow has ambience. It and one other mall ( Cool Springs) will survive in Nashville. Others may not.

I am intrigued by the ability of people to try on virtual clothes online then transmitting an image to their friends for comment.

1 Like
4

End of my rambling thoughts and random musings.
I am curious what all of you think.
Criticisms welcome, I may be wrong.

othalan,

I have some experience here.

First investing based on mega trends is an excellent way to make a small fortune. . . out of a large one.

Much better to look for companies with a YPEG and go from there. Start at top line growth. Look for innovation and most importantly cash accumulation. I am very fond of cash. It is warm, and soft and feels good in my wallet.

If you look back to 1982, there are 4 companies that have ruled. Only two of them are new high tech wiz bang companies, Windows and Microsoft. The other two are pretty boring, Walmart and Berkshire Hathaway. Positive disruption and innovation will create wealth, but the disrupters and innovators do not necessarily keep it, nor reward the share holders for investing in it.

If you want to really know the future, find the companies making money. I believe that they will point the way.

Cheers
Qazulight

2 Likes
5

My conclusion from watching the video and my experience in having lived through the dot.com era and (currently) working for a major utility is you don’t want to invest in companies that are doing the disrupting. You want to invest in (and work for) the companies that are benefiting from or stand to benefit from the disruption. What do I think that will be? Travel, leisure, companies that support entreprenuers, online shopping. Hopefully others will come up with more ideas.

Peace,
Dana

6

Very interesting presentation. The guy is an optimist and does not see the negatives or ignores them. I don’t know what they are but suppose the growth rate is half of what he says, what does that do to the investment thesis considering that time is money?

Seba mentions the “S” curve but does not dwell on the subject. I have probably talked more about the “S” curve at TMF than any other Fool or fool. The “S” curve is not related solely to disruptive technology but to growth in general, even to the growth of yeast cultures and it can be used as the timer of your technology investing. The theory is that the lifetime of any disruptive technology can be divided into three thirds of equal or similar duration. The inflection point between the first and second thirds, the curve in the hockey stick, happens at about 15% market penetration. The top of the “S” start at around 85% market penetration. The fast growth happens in the middle third. The first third is very risky, lots of technologies fail to “cross the chasm.” During the last third the technology, while no longer growing, can be a very fat cash cow (Microsoft?).

If you buy the “S” curve scenario you should wait until the curve in the hockey stick before making an investment. Next, you should stick with the investment even though more than likely you’ll experience 50% stock price drops. As market saturation approaches its time to end the investment.

The “S” curve is technology wide, not company specific. A company like Apple can have successive “S” curves: iPod, iPad, iPhone, etc.

While I believe the above to be accurate it does not mean it is easy to follow which is part of the reason I’ve stopped investing in individual technology companies preferring instead to invest via ETFs. Saul is right when he says that one can do better than the indexes (ETFs are index funds) but one has to be very agile to do so. Technology indexes beat the overall market and I’m satisfied with that.

A curious thing about the presentation is that it has we worried about investments in fossil fuels. My one position is Core Labs (CLB) which is in the oil service industry. I’ve been expecting it to rebound from cyclical oil bottom but if Seba is right, oil will go down some more, not back up.

To conclude where I started, suppose Seba is right but off in his timing, what will it do to your investment thesis? The main difference I see between Seba and most forecasters – which makes him more credible – is that he is using comparative costs based on real world prices to drive the technology adoption, not just some Sci-Fi like wishful thinking.

Denny Schlesinger

12 Likes
7

Excellent presentation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0

However, I disagree with him on some points.

Most the age limitations on cars is not the engine. Most people drive 10,000 miles a year - and at 15 years, the car is going fine.

New cars need a tune up at 100K miles - maybe - I changed the plugs at 100K miles and they were still good. Had to change the oil every 8000 miles and an air filter at 45K miles on the new car. Big deal. Once a year $39 for oil change and $10 for an air filter every five years.

The big limitations are on car are:

suspension and steering - steering racks - wheel bearings and alignments -

Tires and brakes - some idiots go through brakes every 25k miles.

The seats - sorry folks - after 15 years of NORMAL use the seats are getting worn out - sooner if you got a bunch of kids /teenagers with sticky foods and drinks all time. Carpets get worn out.

Mechanicals - air conditioners - will be the same - heating systems - windshield wipers - electric windows - radio/entertainment - which now is the biggest ‘failure’ and ‘problem’ issue.

My original 1990 Honda Accord was 17 years old when I sold it. 170K miles. Only problems were - duh - half axle/CV joint- relay under dashboard that took weeks to finally fix - and that was it. the seats were pretty well worn from it being the daily driver. Had a few wheel alignments, probably 4-5 new sets of tires - but everything else, knock on wood, was in fine shape. but I’m sure if it was driven 100K miles a year, lots of things would have crapped out.

The guy totally fails to mention wind - which is now larger than solar and growing even faster. And low cost.

I’m not totally sold on ‘battery power’. - YET. Nice but we’re talking gigawatt hours of capacity for running through the night each location - and what happens if the sun doesn’t shine for 3 or 4 days? Does the city go dark like in Austalia now - which has 25% of homes with solar - but has rolling blackouts?

Somehow at this point, it’s hard to imagine where ALL THE BATTERIES for the tens of millions of EV and all the grid storage are going to come from. Can you ramp up lithium production that fast?

The other factors for EV adoption are charging. Half the homes in the US have no place to charge a car. Until the 15 minute charger down the street at the ‘former gas station’ shows up…you can’t serve half the market. Think parking on city streets. Think large apartment lots of 300 cars. Think multi level garages for apartment buildings.

Conclusion: I think he plays a bit fancy with his numbers on EV and their cost. And the ability of the grid to charge ten million EVs every day. oops I should say night when cars are home in garages… from what? Battery storage when the sun doesn’t shine. Doesn’t quite add up! At least in the time frame.

t.

4 Likes
8

Think large apartment lots of 300 cars. Think multi level garages for apartment buildings.

Ok, lets assume that everyone living in an apaerment is either a low life that doesn’t deserve the future or the all use Uber.

In the 2009 census there were a 130 million unit and of those 91 million are single family homes or mobile homes. That is roughly 70 percent.

That is pretty significant,
for intermittent power to work, those homes need about at least 10 kilowatt hours of storage 20 would be better, that should provide enough for the house and a short commute, a more comfortable amount would be 40 to 60 kilowatt hours or roughly 40 100,000,000 kilowatt hours of battery storage in addition to the 60 to 100 kilowatt hour packs needed in both of the cars parked at each one of those houses, or roughly 80 200,000,000 kilowatt hours of electricity.

If I did not hose up the zeros again, we need 4 billion kilowatt hours of batteries for the single family homes and 16 billion kilowatt hours for the cars or 20 billion kilowatt hours of batteries to get us to mostly battery future.

The lone giga factory can produce 35 gigawatts per year.

Lets see, hum 20 billion kilowatts is 20,000 billion watts, or 20,000 gigawatts. If I did the math right, the giga factory will have it all done in 571 years.

or we can do it in 10 years if we build 57 more giga factories next year.

As the economic benifit to electitric cars and solar powe are so great, the factories are not out of the question.

If I were to invest based on these assesements, I would look for equipment manufacuters for battery manufacturing and/or constiction companies that needed special skill sets for building those factories.

Personally, I think a better approach is just to screen for companies with awesome ypegs and let the profits lead.

Cheers
Qazulight

4 Likes
9

This was my introduction to S-curves - the book Predictions, by Theodore Modis:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0671759175/

1 Like
10

An alternative to lithium ion batteries that isn’t prone to overheating dangers, but is still high-energy, is the silver-zinc battery. But this doesn’t overcome the risk of batteries running down when there isn’t something available to recharge them.

11

Thank you all for interesting thoughts. A few musings in reply:

(on batteries) XMFBreakerTinker: Not overlooked at all, that company is Tesla. They are building the world’ largest factory to manufacture batteries.

Thank you, makes Tesla that much more worth looking at.

Thinking on this more from an investment perspective, I am most interested future research than current battery production. That new Tesla factory is a simple logical progression to the question of how do we store energy. I am more interested in the implications of batteries becoming more important. This will drive money into research for better options. Tesla might make a lot of money from its new world’s largest factory but the fact that it is the world’s largest factory will limit its ability to adapt to new battery technologies. If these trends are even remotely correct, it seems likely there will be smaller more adaptable companies producing new technologies in energy storage which will provide interesting growth investment opportunities.

Here is a good article on possible future batteries which shows the amount of research now being put into the topic … which at some point may lead to very interesting investment opportunities.

http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/130380-future-batteries-comi…

LovePeace: My conclusion from watching the video and my experience in having lived through the dot.com era and (currently) working for a major utility is you don’t want to invest in companies that are doing the disrupting. You want to invest in (and work for) the companies that are benefiting from or stand to benefit from the disruption. What do I think that will be? Travel, leisure, companies that support entreprenuers, online shopping. Hopefully others will come up with more ideas.

Dana, thank you, I think that is important to remember. Uber and competitors could be interesting beneficiaries of widespread Level 5 Autonomy and that is only the most obvious. Meanwhile, Tesla could perpetually stutter as they chase a dream. However, Amazon seems relevant here as they are both a driver of disruption and a beneficiary of the same disruption. I’m not saying Tesla is in that category, just that this possibility is worth remembering. I don’t have the historical context to be certain but I wonder if Ford was in a similar situation when they first developed their manufacturing lines.

captainccs: The “S” curve is technology wide, not company specific.

Yes, very important to remember! Connecting the dots … This is why I believe an awareness of the technology wide “S curve” is important in my investing style (which closely matches Saul’s). The acceleration phase of that S curve is when the there are growth opportunities in that industry. Any individual company might do anything from succeeding wildly to failing completely while this disruption is happening but so long as the disruption even is occurring there will be growth companies of interest to invest in. Though as you say, this requires being agile in my investments.

This ties back into some other discussions on this board. “Big Data” for example. I have identified Big Data as being a brand new industry (disruptive event) and am invested in a few interesting players centered around that theme. TLND, MULE, SPLK, HDP. Qazulight mentioned being fond of cash (a perspective I very much agree with) but at the same time I recognize research requires spending a lot of cash and the profitability of these companies (accumulating cash) is not always clear at the early stages of the disruption.

I see two distinct opportunities in this: First, to invest in the companies which are actively making money around the disruptive event. Second, to invest in companies with new ideas that look as if they may spread rapidly … but may not yet be profitable (heavy R&D and marketing costs). The first strategy is primarily focused on the later stages of the S-curve when the chaos has settled down enough to identify the winners. Good strategy! The second strategy pays to the initial stages of the S-curve by identifying which companies the market sees as creating value in this new (disruptive) idea. Also a good strategy but it requires significantly more agility and awareness of the industry in question.

Denny, you also mention this guy is an optimist. Absolutely. Counterintuitively, that is actually why I like his presentation when I think about investment opportunities. Yes, optimism in investing is likely to backfire. However, as I travel the world I see that technology is changing so fast people (in a general sense) are having a hard time cognitively keeping up with the reality of how rapidly the changes are occurring. Maybe this will create investment opportunities (stock prices which are relatively low compared to the companies potential).

telegraph: The seats - sorry folks - after 15 years of NORMAL use the seats are getting worn out

I agree. I suspect that if changes occur even remotely along the lines of the ideas in that video, the a lot will change in automotive maintenance. Seat replacement could be come an important industry. Maintenance and repair cycles will also change radically. Lots of traditional car mechanics will likely disappear. A fully autonomous car could bring itself to a maintenance shop at any time, including in the middle of the night when it has no riders. Perhaps as part of that maintenance cycle the interior is inspected and the seats replaced if necessary?

9 Likes
12

The seats - sorry folks - after 15 years of NORMAL use the seats are getting worn out

Otholan, I loved your big post, but on this point above aren’t you missing the idea that 15 year old technology will be so old fashioned that no one will keep a car more than five years because the technology will be improving so fast. Just a thought.

Saul

13

Two points to ponder: 1) transmission is an alternative to storage, and 2) there is no reason to limit the model to power generation from one source only (solar).

The difficulty with transmission is the inefficiency of the current grid but which could be solved using high temperature superconducting technology. The reason it is not happening is that private electric utilities have not found it to their economic advantage to sink the required capital. This could change and the need for storage, in batteries or otherwise, would shrink. Predicting the future of the electric grid is as hard as predicting any future.

Sunlight can be harvested in many ways from solar panels to windmills and hydroelectric dams. Additional power can be had from geothermal and landfills. While the sun does not shine the wind might still blow and water will go over the dam if not here then somewhere else.

Local energy harvesting and local storage reduce the need for transmission but the whole system still has to be redundant like flood sewers and sea walls. Now put all that into a model and tell me how the future will unfold.

Denny Schlesinger

As a boat owner I had to deal with this on a tiny one boat scale. I installed solar panels and a windmill. I could get power from the motor’s alternator and from shore. Power was consumed in two ways, slow and steady while using “house lights” and fast and furious when starting the engine or raising an anchor. This required two sets of batteries with different characteristics and a bunch of equipment to convert AC to DC and back. The details are too complicated for the futurologists models.

1 Like
14

Otholan, I loved your big post, but on this point above aren’t you missing the idea that 15 year old technology will be so old fashioned that no one will keep a car more than five years because the technology will be improving so fast. Just a thought.

See what I mean by getting your predicting models right?

Denny Schlesinger

Talking about worn out seats, my dad was deeply disappointed when the upholstery on his brand new 1952 Packard Clipper wore out in short order. At the shop they told him he could stop worrying, what wore out was the fabric cover over the leather seats. They removed the covers and my dad was as happy as a kid with a new toy. LOL

https://www.google.com/search?q=1952+Packard+Clipper&num…

1 Like
15

More than half of people in the US DO have a place to charge a BEV Maybe just not charge fast But 1430(most already have it) or 1450 service ( not hard to add) are options.
Places like NYC are not the whole world .In my state less than 9 % of the population lives in apartments.
http://www.nmhc.org/Content.aspx?id=4708
Even some of them have an outside electric socket.

Even 120 volt can charge 45 miles in a Tesla in 15 hours, enough for most daily commutes . Been there done that. At one place I use an electric clothes dryer outlet charging at 21 miles per hour charge
Point being most US homes have 200 amp service, plenty enough to handle a 240 volt BEV charger.

I think the eventual lifespan on any car BEV or ICE comes when the cost of the needed repair exceeds the sale value of the car. Usually transmission , engine , or A/C related. The only difference with a BEV is that drive train components will last longer.

Fact is that most cars both over 100,000 miles drive poorly due to suspension wear. Some notice, some don’t notice, some don’t care, some put up with it to save money.

1 Like
16

Saul:" but on this point above aren’t you missing the idea that 15 year old technology will be so old fashioned that no one will keep a car more than five years because the technology will be improving so fast. Just a thought."

Then you would have to depreciate the car over five years - down to a low value since no one will want it when the ‘new’ model goes 50% further with more bells and whistles. Well, it will be good for resale market and for those who can’t afford new to buy ‘used’.

And for those thinking of owning a car and putting 100K miles a year on it, good luck. Be sure to have a great place for cleaning it nightly if you have five or ten or 20 people riding in it…leaving loads of trash behind, food on the seats, mud on the carpets, and who knows what else? Stench from smoking weed, drug user needles down in the cushions…

And no…folks aren’t going to be happy about extension cords running down the block where you had to park in front of your single family house. Someone trips over it…lawsuit…or some ones snowblower cuts it as he clears his sidewalk, not seeing your extension cord, the guy gets electrocuted…and his wife sues your family for all it’s worth… or…your car doesn’t get charged that night…

I’d say a good half of houses have no practical way, and 90% of apartments or more have no practical way to charge.

Even in my ‘higher end’ type suburbia 4-5 bedroom community, there’s 30 cars on a 1/2 mile street parked on the street at night. Probably 2 in the garage too.

Already there have been half a dozen investing carcasses in the battery business. A123 battery to start.

Half a dozen EV companies were start ups…and went nowhere but bankrupt.

GE blew a lot of money on grid storage batteries. Market wasn’t there. They are in holding pattern.

Technologies are disruptive when it saves people money, convenience, and time. So far the EV doesn’t seem to save a lot of money, is a lot less convenient to have to charge frequently, can’t go on trips, and isn’t going to save you any money on routine maintenance. And offer significant cost advantages - enough to make people want to switch.

As to operating costs…EVs are a lot less per mile because now people escape ‘road taxes’. That’s going to change as EVs penetrate. Already WA and OR have talked about a per mile charge for roads…to be paid annually when you register your vehicle. Either that, or a hefty annual registration to recoup the lost road tax. Maybe a few cents per mile. What is it now for gas? And the feds will jump on board, too. YOu’ve got both state and fed ‘road tax’ now. So far, the EV industry has been skating on this. It’s around the corner.

When you have fully autonomous vehicles, they will be a big hit. But will people own them and how many? Or will Uber and similar own most, rent them out?

Ya know- people now can save a lot of money by carpooling…but in most places to make it happen, it’s almost at the point of a gun. Simply saving money is not a motivating factor for many people when it comes to car independence.

Well, if I’m still around in 10 or 20 years, it would be nice to have an AV to take me to the doc, off to club meetings at night (I don’t like driving at night these days), off to dinner out, maybe to the movies every now and then…heck, at 90, I’m not likely to be driving myself. Maybe they’ll have versions for handicap folks?

Meanwhile, I just think the ‘virtual reality’ hype. Like the Star Trek Holodeck. It was going to change the world. Just as much as the ‘smart home’. Neither, as far as I can tell, has done much to impact daily life. Or 3D TV…or even 3D movies…when was the last time you saw ads for 3D TV sets?

t

5 Likes
17

"I think the eventual lifespan on any car BEV or ICE comes when the cost of the needed repair exceeds the sale value of the car. Usually transmission , engine , or A/C related. The only difference with a BEV is that drive train components will last longer. "

There is nothing to suggest that.

The first off problem is the battery. You think it will last 10-15 years? With large discharge levels? Even Tesla doesn’t agree. Limited number of cycles.

then you have the high power electronics. In a Prius Hybrid, you have a special radiator used for cooling the electronics. Oops…radiator.

In EVs, the Volt has a battery heater! when it’s 40 below…well, you got to do something…and when it is hot outside, the battery needs a lot of cooling.

Folks imagine an EV is nothing but a simple battery and an electric motor. Heck, its a 50 or 100 or 150 HP or more electric motor working it’s heart out on acceleration. You’ve still got CV type joints, drive shafts, and the whole rest of the stuff to deal with.

so far the Prius is 10 years old and the battery seems fine…but it only operates over a very limited range of less than 40-80% charge…not even half the rated capacity - to get good life out of it. Most batteries in Priuses seem fine after 10-15 years…but shallow discharge. (and NiCad).

EVs are likely to have more…and more expensive electronics …to crap out. Yeah, your rings won’t wear out - but heck, other than abuse, who has had to change the rings/ pistons in a car lately? Buy a Honda or Toyota, they’re good for 250,000 miles. The rest of the car has gone to pot long before then for most people.

t.

2 Likes
18

number of homes with garages or carport
https://www.quora.com/How-many-people-in-the-US-have-a-garag…
known=most homes

70% of Americans actually live in a single family home.

80 Percent of Americans Prefer Single-Family Homeownership

66% percent of homes have a garage or “carport”

number of homes with a place to install a J1772 or higher
unknown but a lot .

number of homes with no electrical outlet but residents that can afford a new car
unknown but not many . Especially outside of places like NYC where you might to want/need a car

difficulty of installing a fast charger in most homes
plenty of anecdotal evidence that it is mostly a $300-$400 affair then useable for life of the home. Newer homes are easier. See boards at teslamotors and teslamotorsclub.
I have installed 2. One cost $150 the other $250. IIRC.

a good half of houses have no practical way depends on your definition of practical but almost all have “a way,” and for $300 or so can easily charge from near empty to full overnight Assuming people in your neighborhood need to sleep.

re “road tax”- my state did it, all of a whopping $100/year. Because the issue of raising taxes is tricky politically in my state it will be at least a decade before that issue comes up again.

BEV are not and will not be for everybody (especially in less developed countries)
But I don’t care as long as there are enough BEV buyers to propel TSLA shares higher.

2 Likes
19

The first off problem is the battery. You think it will last 10-15 years?
what can I say but that there is ample documented evidence, and that the degradation rate of Tesla’s pampered batteries is well known. They will last a longtime. Look it up.
My Tesla is 3 years old and has lost only about 5 miles range. Range loss will be even less in the future, it slows with time.

Your ICE will lose range too as the engine wears, and MPG declines. And lose performance. Not generally true of electric motors ,they either work or don’t work.
Apparently due to un-announced internet improvements mine is quicker 0 to 60 mph than when new. And my “miles per kilowatt” will not decline in the future. Eventually I may only be able to make a non stop 240 mile trip,but by then SC will be everywhere. Not to mention that destination charging may be as ubiquitous as Wi Fi is today
.
Prius batteries are not NiCad but Ni Mh in older ones. New ones offer Li ion or NI Mh
http://www.carscoops.com/2015/11/this-is-why-toyota-offers-t…

2 Likes